Autopsy Round 1, 2024: Hawks fail against Bombers

[SSSSSS]

Refer to the shot chart posted earlier in the thread. We didn't kick straight because our attempts were from the pocket.

Even taking that into account our inaccuracy and their accuracy was a statistical anomaly.

Had we converted our opportunities as expected and Essendon the same we would have won by 2+ goals.

 

[ahhhhhh]

Even taking that into account our inaccuracy and their accuracy was a statistical anomaly.

Had we converted our opportunities as expected and Essendon the same we would have won by 2+ goals.

You can't just look at the raw numbers without context and say it's a statistical anomaly. Maybe if the same player took the same shot at the same position for both teams for every attempt, that is a valid reason.

A lot of their goals were from 20m out straight in front, as they just walked out of the centre square under no pressure to hit Stringer on the chest, while ours were from on the run under pressure near the boundary line 50m out.

We lost because of an extremely poor effort by our midfield, and it wasn't isolated to the last quarter.

 

[Gut Runner]

It wasn't just the kicking accuracy why we lost.

I thought the centre clearances, fitness and the tackle count were also major contributors.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Why did we lose then if we beat them in all these 'key metrics'?

Did you listen to Sam’s presser at all?

As he clearly stated we handed the ball back at the centre clearances more often than not despite getting the first possession. We either fumbled, overused it or tried to play perfect footy.

This is why Reeves had a higher hits to advantage than Goldstein, yet we got smacked in the centre clearances.

On top of that, we kicked poorly in front of goal as others have said.

 

[eldorado]

We lost because of an extremely poor effort by our midfield, and it wasn't isolated to the last quarter.

yeah, mate, but it's a million miles from that to 'we were never a chance'

The team with 6 more shots, and 6 more inside 50s was 'never a chance'?

That's what people are picking you up on. More times than not, at least according to people who have looked at websites that do this kind of statistical stuff, the team with our stats wins.

 

[SSSSSS]

You can't just look at the raw numbers without context and say it's a statistical anomaly. Maybe if the same player took the same shot at the same position for both teams for every attempt, that is a valid reason.

A lot of their goals were from 20m out straight in front, as they just walked out of the centre square under no pressure to hit Stringer on the chest, while ours were from on the run under pressure near the boundary line 50m out.

We lost because of an extremely poor effort by our midfield, and it wasn't isolated to the last quarter.

A statistical anomaly is a statistical anomaly context or not - the numbers speak for themselves. There are decades worth of data that CD utilises to analyse the probability of a goal scored based on the location of the opportunity, the pressure the player was under etc. The fact is purely by the numbers we should have converted more opportunities than we did, and Essendon converted more than they should have. I'm not saying that's why we lost and they won but it played a massive part, especially in what was a tight scoring game save for the last 10 minutes.

We could have done a lot of things to get the 4 points. Our midfield should have played tighter in defence, our forwards possibly could have squared up a few more opportunities in central areas, our defenders had too many lapses of concentration giving up 2x uncontested marks to Stringer. We didn't. We have areas to work on and I'm sure this is not something that players and staff will be sleeping on.

I don't think there is any need for alarm bells to be ringing yet. Despite the result there is a lot of upside in the way we played. We will 100% win plenty of games of footy if we consistently beat our opposition in the following stats (history is very kind to teams who win the first three);

More inside 50s
More Marks inside 50
More shots on goal
More contested possessions
More intercepts

For us to have achieved the above with a completely non-functioning midfield and our two star key ends in Sicily and Lewis not firing a shot is a massive step forward in our development. We are starting to become less reliant on individual brilliance which is a good thing for a side wanting to win flags.

 

[Tony3163]

WTF? We kicked 17 behinds and were 8 points down half way through the last. How the * were we never a chance?

Yes, it was one of those extreme (wrong) statements you see from time to time on BF.

 

[Mitch75]

Yes, it was one of those extreme (wrong) statements you see from time to time on BF.

It probably felt like we were never a chance in the game because we just always seemed to mess up our chances whereas they seemed like they couldn’t miss. They kicked an insane 11.1 from their set shots to our pretty average 7.9. A lot of ours were gettable misses, from guys who are usually sharp shooters - Breust, Gunston, Lewis and Chol.

And it also felt like our midfield couldn’t get into gear, all afternoon. Worpel had 10 clearances, two better than anyone else on the ground. Out next best was Reeves who had 3. Our other mids each had 2 clearances or less. Piss poor effort.

Otherwise structurally we held up pretty well. Lots of intercept possessions and lots of scores generated from those. But if you let the opposition get the centre clearance and walk it up to the 50 as often as we did, you’re gonna get cooked.

 

[TylerDurden]

It probably felt like we were never a chance in the game because we just always seemed to mess up our chances whereas they seemed like they couldn’t miss. They kicked an insane 11.1 from their set shots to our pretty average 7.9. A lot of ours were gettable misses, from guys who are usually sharp shooters - Breust, Gunston, Lewis and Chol.

And it also felt like our midfield couldn’t get into gear, all afternoon. Worpel had 10 clearances, two better than anyone else on the ground. Out next best was Reeves who had 3. Our other mids each had 2 clearances or less. Piss poor effort.

Otherwise structurally we held up pretty well. Lots of intercept possessions and lots of scores generated from those. But if you let the opposition get the centre clearance and walk it up to the 50 as often as we did, you’re gonna get cooked.

100%

Was at the game, and we never felt safe.

When they started drilling goals from 50m on the run, it whipped up the crowd too.

Just felt like a game we weren't gonna win.

 

[ahhhhhh]

100%

Was at the game, and we never felt safe.

When they started drilling goals from 50m on the run, it whipped up the crowd too.

Just felt like a game we weren't gonna win.

Yep. I wouldn't dare say it because I was incredibly wrong before, but if you were at the game you felt the impending sense of doom the entire game.

 

[Sixpence]

100%

Was at the game, and we never felt safe.

When they started drilling goals from 50m on the run, it whipped up the crowd too.

Just felt like a game we weren't gonna win.

Given that our biggest lead was 8 points, it stands to reason that we wouldn't feel safe.

I doubt Essondon fans did either until Gresham's goal.

 

[Nick the Pig]

Did you listen to Sam’s presser at all?

As he clearly stated we handed the ball back at the centre clearances more often than not despite getting the first possession. We either fumbled, overused it or tried to play perfect footy.

This is why Reeves had a higher hits to advantage than Goldstein, yet we got smacked in the centre clearances.

On top of that, we kicked poorly in front of goal as others have said.

You are wording this as though Reeves was dominating in the ruck and it was solely the midfielders dropping the ball (literally and figuratively).

This wasn't the case. Reeves had total 9 hitouts to advantage for the match. Goldstein had 8. Hardly a difference. Goldy nullified Reeves strength well. Reeves was unable to get on top

 

[Alite]

They got their goals easy. We got 'em wide and hard. Every time we scored a goal they got an easy (very easy) reply. Our backline needs attention.

From memory, 10 of *’s 17 goals came from centre clearance. And many of those 10 goals went over the heads of their fwds and our bks. Strangely, our centre was the problem! If 1.5mill McKay played for the Hawks he would have watch it sail over his head.

As others have eluded, our centre set up was unorthodox. Whatever the Hawks were trying in the centre, it did not work.

If the Hawks halved the centre, it would have been an easy win. Let alone if the fwds kicked straight.

No matter. The Hawks are not challenging this year and so on to the next game.

 

[FB19]

Could I put an added insight on this?

If we had made our kicks, we would have pounded them into the turf. A moral victory, for sure, but also true. If we get even moderately hot kicking for goal against the mid-table teams, our effort and production elsewhere will generate the opportunities we need to win. It’s still a little ways to go until our whole-of-field game can stand up against finalists, but against Essendon I think we saw we can stand up against the middle table teams. We just need to get hot feet in front of goal.

A moral victory. Lest not go down that path shall we…

 

[Mercy Seat]

You can't just look at the raw numbers without context and say it's a statistical anomaly. Maybe if the same player took the same shot at the same position for both teams for every attempt, that is a valid reason.

A lot of their goals were from 20m out straight in front, as they just walked out of the centre square under no pressure to hit Stringer on the chest, while ours were from on the run under pressure near the boundary line 50m out.

We lost because of an extremely poor effort by our midfield, and it wasn't isolated to the last quarter.

I thought mids did ok for big parts of the match, but our effort in clearances wasn’t great as you’ve pointed out and our defensive pressure was poor on transition.

That said, I think with a key defender in the side, we concede less of those inside 50 marks, and Sicily is able at a play his normal intercepting game which could have been the difference.

 

[HedgeFund]

Yeah I'm not really sure about the optimism out of this game. We were never a chance. I think the players knew it as well.

You must be right. The players knew it didn’t they?

That period during the first half when, despite kicking horribly for goal - we were in front on the scoreboard’s - we actually were never a chance.

That period in the 3rd term when the lead changed 8 times - we actually were never a chance.

Finally that point just over halfway through the last quarter when Moore’s goal brought us back within 7 points with 10 minutes to go - we actually were never a chance.

The players knew it, that’s why we got belted by 10 goals…..

FFS.

 

[Mississippi]

I thought mids did ok for big parts of the match, but our effort in clearances wasn’t great as you’ve pointed out and our defensive pressure was poor on transition.

That said, I think with a key defender in the side, we concede less of those inside 50 marks, and Sicily is able at a play his normal intercepting game which could have been the difference.

Yes to the key defender - our massive weakness.
How old is Brian Lake?

 

[number23]

I'm glad that at least one Hawk beat a Bomber this week:

AFL legends brawl over Bunnings real estate

James Hird may have been the better player, but Chris Langford has won this contest.

www.afr.com

 

[Manila_Hawk]

I'm glad that at least one Hawk beat a Bomber this week:

AFL legends brawl over Bunnings real estate

James Hird may have been the better player, but Chris Langford has won this contest.

www.afr.com

In a battle of wits, Hird was unarmed.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You are wording this as though Reeves was dominating in the ruck and it was solely the midfielders dropping the ball (literally and figuratively).

This wasn't the case. Reeves had total 9 hitouts to advantage for the match. Goldstein had 8. Hardly a difference. Goldy nullified Reeves strength well. Reeves was unable to get on top

I’m wording exactly how it reads.
Reeves had more hits to advantage, and we won first possession. We then either fumbled or stumbled our way to a centre clearance loss.

Sam even reiterated this today in his presser.

 

[peetoo]

The Essendon edge is reheated north niggle.
Parley called them out. Funny how this happens of Essendon lose, but not mentioned so much the week before

Scott defends Bombers, Papley says physical approach 'a facade'

Tom Papley has questioned Essendon's physical approach after a fiery encounter at the SCG

www.afl.com.au